Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With readOnlyHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description adds genuinely non-structured context: commits come specifically from synced repositories, and it defines the linkType classification ('message' = '#<key>' in the commit message; 'branch' = commit on the task branch without the key). That linkType semantics is real behavioral/domain information absent from annotations and schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and return shape before the linkType detail. The linkType notation is terse to the point of being slightly cryptic, but there is no redundant filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only, output-schema-less tool, the description supplies the returned fields and the linkType semantics an agent needs to interpret results. The remaining gap is that it never states both parameters are optional or what happens if neither ID nor key is supplied.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% (both ID and key are documented, including the 'without #' nuance), so the schema carries the parameter burden and a 3 baseline applies. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own beyond the mention of '<key>' inside the linkType explanation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns a task's commits') and scopes the source ('from the product's synced repositories'), enumerating the returned fields. This clearly distinguishes it from generic repo tools, though it never names the closest siblings (repo_history, task_code_context) that an agent might confuse it with.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Nothing tells the agent how this differs from repo_history, repo_compare, or task_code_context, and the schema (not the description) is the only place that notes key is a fallback when ID is unknown, so the selection logic is left implicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.